Skip to main content

Why do we subsidize our employers with our money and our health?


I just ran into this old article which reminded me of something I read a few weeks ago. That more recent article (which I can't find because I am aging disgracefully) talked jokingly about how Americans eat too much fast food. The article was not substantive, but American commenters were very upset because Europeans don't understand convenience.

The argument was that Americans eat fast food frequently because it is convenient to their lifestyle. Which made me realize just how much the American worker has embraced their employers' needs as their own...while their employers simultaneously fight against the needs of their workers, even for things as simple as a living wage.

Let's be clear: Americans eat fast food because their employers give them very limited time to eat. This creates two problems: 1. Americans eat unhealthy food that is readily available and filled with empty calories and 2. Americans spend more money on that less nutritious food to increase their availability to their employers. (Think about the cost of making one plate of pasta, shrimp and capers v. a McDonald's meal-where I live, the shrimp meal would be cheaper if I only had the time to prepare it)

By embracing "convenience" as a personal benefit and not as a necessity created by employers and their policies, workers continue to subsidize terrible and unhealthy business models. If employers were good at what they do, they would be able to make a living by paying their workers fair wages on fewer hours so their employees could have time to prepare and eat healthy foods. Anything less, and the employer essentially depends on the subsidy of their employees in order to exist. We live in an economic climate where most employers are bad at their business, so that they need their employees to subsidize their business endeavor with money, time and health. Any good business person would never depend on such a subsidy.

Here is the thing though, at what point in our history did Americans accept that this subsidy to their employers was anything other than a subsidy? Italian, Turkish and German workers go up in arms at attempts to cut the time they have to prepare and eat food. Mind you, Turkey and Germany are lending countries globally, while Italy is a borrowing country. What we see is that having an economy that fosters employers who don't need this subsidy from workers doesn't necessarily lead to either a good or bad macro economy, but an economy that requires this employee subsidy does lead to an unhealthy country.

So my question is, when are American workers going to take their time, health and money back?
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I CAN'T PASS JUDGMENT ANYMORE

I know all of my friends are loving the ease and convenience of carrying books around on a Kindle, or whatever the gadget of the day is, but this move to electronic reading is really affecting my ability to judge others, yes, you heard me right-judging others is now difficult. It used to be that I could sit on the train and just by watching book covers, and their respective readers, I would get an idea of what books I might like. Now, everyone has a kindle and I can't really derive reading recommendations without appearing to be a stalker. But worse than that, new friendships are severely affected. I used to be able to walk into someone's house and look at their bookcase and know whether I should run the other way-now, the non-visibility of books makes identifying incompatibility so much more difficult. For example, if someone were to walk into my house, this is what they might see:   You would be correct in making quite a few assumptions about me based on this ...
2 comments
Read more

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: AMERICAN FLAVORED APARTHEID

I remember being a young adult and cramming into a van with 26 other people: this van was designed to hold only nine. Had I been wealthier, I could have gotten on a nicer and safer bus, but I was not wealthy and had to get home ASAP. I hated my country for things like that and loved America because America had nice buses, no overcrowded bus. I had been on American buses and trains while on vacation and they felt glamorous compared to what I had to get on on a regular basis. Years later, I would move to America. I would depend on public transportation to get to work, school and leisure. I lived at the border between a wealthy area and modest one, lucky enough to have been assigned to the wealthier neighborhood's school system. It turns out, PT in America was not that glamorous. The fleets were nicer, but the routes and expense couldn't get me to where I WANTED to be. They were good enough to get me to where OTHERS wanted me to be. I have since moved around and lived all ov...
1 comment
Read more

THE INVISIBLE COST OF TRAUMA AND WHY IT IS HARD TO SEE

Every day I look out of my back door and stare at two beautiful Pine trees. Those who don't know their histories see two well-formed plants that cast shadows, clean air and house neighborhood critters. I, on the other hand, see missed opportunities. Only after looking at what was lost among those trees could I begin to conceptualize how much good has been removed from the human experience due to trauma. I bought my home in 2006 and can assure you that the two Pine trees were planted and transplanted at the same time; they were nurtured (or not) by me in the same amounts. Both trees grew at the same pace for about nine years. Over a year ago there was a huge snow storm that toppled the Pine tree on the left. I tied it back up hoping it wouldn't die. Sure enough, the Pine tree was resilient and survived. In fact, if you were to look at it today you would not know that it once fell over and looks like a model Pine tree. People often see survivors of trauma after they have ...
1 comment
Read more